Big snip as what you have to say has been demonstrated to be completely worthless.
Can’t be bothered with the evidence or logical argument? Why does that not surprise me? But I know the REAL reason why you chose not to reply…it is because you have NO answers to the points I made therein.
I stated:
Suggestion noted. Oh, by the way, I notice you have failed to comment on this case.
Brazilian UFO Night (19 May 1986)
(
http://www.ufo.com.br/documentos/night/Occurrence Report - Translated.pdf)
(
http://www.ufocasebook.com/brazilianairforceadmits.html)
(
http://www.allnewsweb.com/page9299893.php)
(
http://www.cohenufo.org/BrazilianUFODocumentsReleased.htm)
(
http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0909/declassified.php)
I chose not to comment on this case because I see no reason to since it is a highly selective presentation of the event. We are missing some of the most important data associated with the radar, which includes sounding balloon temperature profiles. I talked to a friend of mine in Brazil and he states that many of the officers in the military at the time were very gullible and at least one UFO researcher has indicated the story is way overblown. I could collect this man's information and present it but you would just ignore it. So, I have no interest in wasting my time.
So you are again relying on unfounded assertions to make your point. “A friend of mine in Brazil said…”. Did they indeed...Well, a friend of MINE told be just last night he thought you were very gullible and that your seeming status as an “amateur astronomer” is WAY overblown – but hey, we all have our opinions right…but wait… did I say OPINION? Oh gee, been around JREF too long, where opinion seems to count as fact!
So tell me, when are you going to the scientific community with your theories about UFOs? What papers are you going to write? Exactly how many scientists do you hope to convince with the argument you presented here? I think I can answer that question. You will convince just as many scientists as you have convinced people in this forum. Once again, that is a failure on your part.
I am amusing myself in this forum for the moment. Just because you don’t seem to appreciate that, matters not to me. Besides why do you care so much what I do?
I stated:
Originally Posted by Rramjet
Not at all, for example here:
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...ing-alone.html) and here:
(http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf129/sf129p15.htm)
And here:
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/Cas...ion=Astronomer)
I had to go back and see these ridiculous links.
I had to go back and see these ridiculous links.
The first one is a bogus translation. The real story can be found here:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-09/12/content_8684729.htm
An excerpt:
Ji said he doesn't know why his explanation about a bright spot close to the sun, very likely to be the result of some coronal activity filmed during the total eclipse, was misunderstood.
"Obviously, there have been misunderstandings," Ji says while speaking to China Daily.
Ji says that on Sept 2 he received a call from a journalist who asked him about UFO images taken during the solar eclipse. "I was confused and retorted, 'what UFO?'"
It was not until the journalist referred to the photograph of a bright spot near the sun, posted on the observatory's website as a summary report about Chinese observation of the eclipse, that Ji realized what he was talking about.
The report refers to the bright spot as one of the best examples of Chinese scientists' success in capturing some fresh and clear images for up to 40 minutes of the corona of a solar eclipse.
Ji told the journalist that "people were being organized to study the data, complete the analysis and reveal the scientific results. That will take at least one year to finalize."
But you failed to read the WHOLE report under the original link (including the video) .. oh wait, you can’t understand Chinese… perhaps I’ll translate it into French for you then… No? Into English will have to do then! I cannot get what the presenter is saying. (Actually, truth be told, the report is in Cantonese - which I don’t understand – BUT fortunately the Chinese text provides the translation. So:
The boy in the video is saying he saw what he first took to be an airplane, but then thought the shape was strange. He decided to take some photos (nine in all). He said the object did not deviate from a steady path and the sighting lasted about 3 or 4 minutes. It was only later when he put it onto his computer that he saw how odd the shape really was. He also says that in the photos the object looks black (or dark) but in reality it was lighter coloured. The woman confirms what the boy says.
(
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...e-study-footage-year-hopes-proving-alone.html)
NOT the “Astronomers” object perhaps…just another UFO… what, ANOTHER one…? Is there no end to the madness I here you cry…
AND you selectively quote from the link you DO provide. In it Ji stated:
"That's false news. I said 'an unidentified object' not 'an unidentified flying object'."
So Ji is not ruling in or ruling out anything (your contention is “ruled out” and
you ridicule
me for not investigating properly…huh!). Ji’s contention is that the journalist claimed “UFO” when he did not include “flying” in his description! A matter of semantics. NOT a matter of debunking the object itself.
Again you drag a red herring across the path.
So once again, your intellectual curiousity is nil and you just parrotted a UFO story without any background check.
Actually it is YOU who has failed to look at the whole of the evidence – selecting ONLY those bits that seem to support your faith. That is not very scientific of you Astophotographer. ...don’t you wish you could take back your words sometimes…?
For the second link you apparently never read Menzel’s book (so much for doing extensive research), "The world of flying saucers". In that book, Menzel quoted Tombaugh as stating that what he saw that night was not a “craft” but faint shapes/lights that faded in intensity. Tombaugh added that he felt the more probable answer was probably some sort of natural optical phenomenon. Even if it were not an optical illusion of some kind, Tombaugh never stated he saw physical craft/spaceships. Again, it is easy to proclaim something but you really should read more than just what you can find on the internet.
Let’s see then what Tombaugh actually says shall we – and not what some second hand source (without quotes) interprets him as saying:
(
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Clyde_Tombaugh)
On August 20, 1949, Tombaugh saw several UFOs near Las Cruces, New Mexico. He described them as six to eight rectangular lights, stating:
"I doubt that the phenomenon was any terrestrial reflection, because... nothing of the kind has ever appeared before or since... I was so unprepared for such a strange sight that I was really petrified with astonishment."
(…)
In 1956 Tombaugh had the following to say about his various sightings:
"I have seen three objects in the last seven years which defied any explanation of known phenomenon, such as Venus, atmospheric optic, meteors or planes. I am a professional, highly skilled, professional astronomer. In addition I have seen three green fireballs which were unusual in behavior from normal green fireballs ... I think that several reputable scientists are being unscientific in refusing to entertain the possibility of extraterrestrial life.”
Shortly after this in January 1957, in an Associated Press article in the Alamogordo Daily News titled "Celestial Visitors May Be Invading Earth's Atmosphere," Tombaugh was again quoted on his sightings and opinion about them.
"Although our own solar system is believed to support no other life than on Earth, other stars in the galaxy may have hundreds of thousands of habitable worlds. Races on these worlds may have been able to utilize the tremendous amounts of power required to bridge the space between the stars..."
Tombaugh said he has observed celestial phenomena which he could not explain, but has seen none personally since 1951 or 1952.
"These things, which do appear to be directed, are unlike any other phenomena I ever observed. Their apparent lack of obedience to the ordinary laws of celestial motion gives credence."
Hmm, gee, who is “not reading” more?
For the third link, we have no identification of the "amateur astronomer" or his qualifications. Was he just a casual sky watcher that claimed to be an amateur astronomer or was he just somebody who liked to look at the stars while walking the dog? This report lacks substance and is inadequate to support your claim.
Yeah, sure, just another UFO, don’t know what would become of us if someone actually started paying attention to the pesky things!
BTW, I don't think anyone is saying that astronomers do not report UFOs. However, they report them in numbers far less than the standard populace (See article by Robert Young in SUNlite 1-3) and the rarely, if ever, report actual craft of unknown origin. Most of their reports have to do with unidentiified lights in the sky.
The “standard poplace”? Oh, look a reference to (ahem…)! How startling! Wonder what possible agenda could be happening here? PS: I would appreciate a link that actually worked…
Oh gee, merely “unidentified lights in the sky”? Strange, you would think that working at NIGHT, as they do, they would have more than that…no, wait…did I say working at night..?
It seems your knowledge about astronomers and UFOs is very limited. You are nothing more than a UFO propoganda parrot. You simply repeat what these websites tell you and don't even look beyond it.
Well, if you provided a link that actually worked I might have a better chance…
The ball is back in your court, burden of proof wise. All of your cases have been refuted.
Opinion as fact again.
“Sir, what will it be today? We have a lovely special on at the moment…” Oh, yes, what might that be then.
“Oh, it is a really delightful serve of opinion as fact. Ummm…no thanks, I’ve already had my fill….
So what was it about those cases that made you (a scientist) so gullible as to believe they were evidence of aliens?
Well… I guess you really have not read my answers on this have you. I have stated numerous times WHY I understand the evidence points toward “alien”. But why should I repeat it again and again? You would just ignore it again and again. If I feel like it I might (again), but in the meantime, why don’t you review my answer to this question in my numerous posts.
